Skip to main content

tv   Washington Journal  CSPAN  February 20, 2013 7:00am-10:00am EST

7:00 am
control, immigration and health care. christian science monitor business editor, lauren bel sky. host: good morning and welcome on this wednesday, february 20, 2013. congress is out this week. there are nine days until the automatic spending cuts known as the sequester. congressional leaders and the white house are trading statements about who is to blame and who can stop them. we will talk more about that later first. , our question is about traffic lights and the americas intersections. states and localities are debating whether red light camera makes streets safer or if they are simply a revenue- generating tool taking money from drivers. we would like to hear from you whether you think they make your
7:01 am
streets safer. here are the numbers to call -- you can also find us online. send us a tweet. we can share that on the air. you can also find us online on facebook. or e-mail us. nbc's a recent story from news. currently 21 states and washington use automated cameras at traffic intersections to catch violations such as running through red lights and stopping overnight lines.
7:02 am
7:03 am
do you have red light camera in your community? if so, what do you think about them? sheryl is a democrat in baltimore. caller: good morning. thanks for letting me on. i live in baltimore and i am not sure if everyone has seen the news, but our red light camera parked car got a $40 speeding ticket and the car was not moving for . we want to make sure the equipment works and is accurate. -- -- and the car was not moving for 30 seconds. host: new york city is accused of rigging red lights in a class-action lawsuit. new york city is facing a class action lawsuit. the city accused of rigging lights to catch more drivers and right more tickets.
7:04 am
-- write more tickets. isidor is a republican in washington, d.c. caller: in d.c. on new york avenue, as you entered the scene, they have the camera right there. if you are headed into maryland or coming into d.c., they have the gotcha camera. there are police on duty right after you run the red light camera to slow you down and give you a ticket even if you got the red-light ticket. what about the drug drivers? they're really not that concerned. it is a money machine. they're all over. host: do you think it makes use a for? caller: no.
7:05 am
i'm not saying they could use speed bumps, and i don't think it makes us safer. if anything, i've seen it cause a lot of accidents, people slamming on breaks. host: story from the washington post. our question for you this morning is what you think of red-light cameras, in particular at intersections to see whether people blow through the intersection or stop on time.
7:06 am
there are couple challenges to the cameras. here's one from new jersey. after impassioned pleas from traffic experts and police officers from towns that have automatied traffic cops, the bil was held in a vote. motorists have fumed over violations for the so-called california roll when there are no other cars around. pines in new jersey up to $140. reported in florida, republican. -- victoria is a republican in
7:07 am
florida. caller: thanks for taking my call. i have had two violations in the last year which were overthrown in the courts here in sarasota as well as another town. the incident happened in sarasota where i was making a turn on a green light and then it turned from yellow quickly to red and it happened at the last second. if i had not gone at the pace i was going, the guy behind me would have been right on top of me, which would have caused a major accident. that was pretty well shown in court. the second was in brandon, where there are thousands of those red
7:08 am
lights. i got that one -- i took that to court and that was kicked out, because the same incident would have happened to me. i probably would have told my car if that guy had not been driving right on top of me. it is a cash cow for these cities. they love the profits, people will like this sort of thing, but it does not help the individual who is not doing anything wrong. these cameras are set to catch you at any particular time. it does not matter if you go through a green light, a yellow light, or a red light. that was very obvious in two of my cases. host: how hard was it for you to challenge the tickets? caller: not very difficult, because most of the judge's are
7:09 am
very fair. when they see the film, they will work with you. host: victoria, is that a sign of the system working, if you were able to challenge it am did not have to pay the ticket? caller: no, because there are a lot of bumper crashes throughout this area in sarasota. host: here's what is happening in florida, a story from the orlando sentinel, reporting from tallahassee. matt, chicago, a democrat. caller: good morning. a fantastic show, as usual.
7:10 am
where i live in downtown chicago, we certainly have them. my perspective is this. while they may be a revenue producer for cities, the fact of the matter is that we need that right now. i am always amazed at caller that claimed it is a cash cow and people want to pay less to the government in the form of taxes or fees. the problem is that cities and people that work for cities, just like anyone else, services cost money. the flip side of it, it has made things safer. i see cars a lot less at a
7:11 am
fairly busy intersection in the south loop in chicago and i find drivers much less ready to take that turned when they see folks crossing the street. as for the last caller, that is a good example of judges, if they think the system has not worked, that people are able to take their case to court and present their case and have it overturned. host: here is facebook --
7:12 am
you can join that conversation on facebook. amanda is a republican from sanford, florida. caller: good morning. your caller from florida and these cameras are popping up everywhere daily. every day on the news i hear of new intersections with a red light camera. i have also received two red- light tickets and i know several people who have received them. i chose not to fight my tickets even though i could have legally get because you don't points and it would have cost me more money if they ruled against making for the ticket itself, which i feel is completely manipulative of the american people. i know someone that did go fight it because he was so outraged at
7:13 am
the inaccuracies. he told me that the judge did not even want to hear what anybody else had to say in the courtroom. it was just guilty. that tripled the revenue for the ones who want to fight it. there is an intersection where the intersection of the road is at an angle. the light turned red. i came up to the line, but i rolled up over its lightly just so i could see the intersecting lane at an angle, right there, i'm in trouble, even though i am at a complete stop and i was just over the line, which is what everybody has to do it that intersection to make a right- hand turn. host: what if they changed the
7:14 am
camera or make the camera more intelligent? are you opposed to them across the board? caller: absolutely, i am. as far as obama supporters, this man and this government right now, they're absolutely trying to trap us, control us, manipulate us, and drain us. host: do you blame your local government, which is the one that instituted this? or the federal government? caller: both. host: rob is a democrat in new york. i think red lights ever pretty much become yellow lights now in my experience. the number of red lights that are being blown seems to be an
7:15 am
epidemic. it does generate revenue. the city's backs are against wall. they need different types of revenue. observing as a pedestrian and a driver, it's a good idea. host: stanley in long island, new york, independence. -- independent line. caller: good morning. i have sprayed my license plate with that stuff that you cannot read the number of the plate. host: is that legal? caller: i don't know. host: have you ever gotten pulled over from it? caller: it could be fog on
7:16 am
the camera. host: but a police officer could read it? caller: sure. host: why don't you want the cameras to see your license plate? are you trying to get away with a crime? caller: i never do crimes, but sometimes these things, it's like that lady with the two case is dismissed, hairy areas. host: have you ever talked to law enforcement about whether what you are doing is legal? caller: no. i never had a problem. host: let go to louisiana, republican, john. caller: good morning. we have these in lafayette, louisiana. i have no problem with them. if you run a red light, you are putting people's lives in jeopardy, including your own.
7:17 am
a lot of deaths occur. since then has been put in place in lafayette, there's been a reduction in deaths. people are conscious of it. what people need to understand is a yellow light means slowdown and prepare to stop, not speeds up. we have good engineers here. there's a six second delay between the yellow and the red- light. when you see that yellow lights and you are a good distance off, you need to be stopping. if you are just at the intersection and you see it, you have time to cross and you will not get a ticket. the same thing with speeding. if you are speeding, you deserve a ticket. i have a secret for avoiding those things. i stop at red lights and i drive the speed limit. host: there are some tweets --
7:18 am
bill in new york is a democrat. caller: good morning. i'm a longtime viewer and i really love your show. just one comment i would like to make. they always complain about red lights that really make the streets a lot safer. not only the cars and drivers but the pedestrians trying to cross. can we please put down the cell phone and pay attention to our driving abilities? and just maybe we will not get tickets. that is my only comment and have a great day. host: on twitter -- you can see on wikipedia, his
7:19 am
history, governor of virginia. our question for you this morning is whether you think red lights make the streets safer. we have a pull on our facebook page. so far it the no's are ahead. 31-11. we have about 50 comments. let's look at a couple other stories in the news this morning. general allen will not take nato's top military job. . the piece from the wall street journal.
7:20 am
other stories we're watching in the news, the sequester. you can see president obama speaking in front of emergency responders yesterday, warning of what he said would be the danger if sequestration, the budget cut
7:21 am
scheduled to go into effect in nine days, kick in. the new york times has -- we will talk about that in a little while with our next guest megan hughes of bloomberg tv. we're asking what you think about red lights and whether you print those cameras make the streets safer -- whether you think the red light camera slick streets a for. chris is a republican in california. caller: in san diego bay did away with red-light cameras because there was too many accidents. people were stopping. there's a separate company that was running the red light camera. it was not done by the city. i guess they were making a bit of money, but there was a few
7:22 am
places that it really looked like they were not helping, they were more just catching people that were maybe they ran the red light and maybe it was more they it.ld happeve fought the new mayor did away with them. host: here's a story from california.
7:23 am
that story was from nbc from earlier this month, so that program is winding down now. russell, chicago, democratic caller. caller: good morning. i called to disagree with the caller earlier from the chicago area. i would have to say that it is a cash cow. if you're speaking about the contested area like in the downtown area, i could see a place for that. but in chicago the cameras are located in what we know to be minority aerospace. yes, they do generate millions. if the streets were so unsafe, is there a tally.
7:24 am
they prior to the cameras? how much money comes in before the cameras are put up as opposed to how much now but they have been installed? how much safer is it really? no. it is a cash cow and it is a system you cannot beat. can you even get to court on this thing? if you are working, can you get the time off. the bank on you not being able to do that. the judges have it set up for you to lose one way or another. if you want to disputes, it takes time and money. -- they bank on you not being able to shop. udy.: here is a stea
7:25 am is that web site. chris in topeka, kansas, independence. caller: good morning. what we have here is a diversion. everybody is hung up on it being about running red lights and for safety and so forth when actually what is from one end of the country to the other, especially troubling, is that the technology they have is face recognition. what they can actually do with these cameras is on the fourth
7:26 am
amendment where they are being used for surveillance. they can actually scan up to 1 million cases per minute against the driver's license data bases. what people are missing is the technology on these cameras is so much more advanced. for example, corporations and stores like walgreen's, cbs, they have now admitted they can actually read your blood pressure and get the oxygen count in your face and it has to do with mathematics in the technology. cvs.algreen's and the cameras can be used by police to follow anyone around town, if you get the message i'm trying to say. they are everywhere. host: william in the alliance, ohio, democrat. caller: this is william.
7:27 am
in my city, these cameras are anywhere near downtown areas. they're all outside where there are no houses, no businesses, nothing. and, unlike the lady that said obama is trying to know everything about us, these cameras have been in existence since the early 2000's. if the police cannot do their job, then get another job. glycolate said, these street he lady said, the
7:28 am
streets are crowded and you have to go way up to see over the bushes. host: what about the argument that the cameras are cheaper than stationing police officers at tricky intersections? caller: in my area, the company puts them in, they pay for them, and then the city and them split the money. host: ok. caller: that's what it is in my part of ohio. it has nothing to do with they want to keep watch over america ns. host: let's go to dave in english town, new jersey, republican. caller: good morning.
7:29 am
well, i just called in to a local station last night about this. new jersey has a lot of jurisdictions looking at pulling out the cameras, especially in southern new jersey, because they have been responsible for a lot of accidents, a lot of drivers in new jersey love to blow yellow lights. people are now locking up their breaks. those behind them are slamming into them, causing a lot of rear end collisions and debone accidents -- t-bone accident. a lot of people are complaining about the fines and a lot of complaints about sometimes you just get caught, either due to the road conditions, you cannot lock your brakes, or your rolled through the intersection and you end up with a ticket for that. some of it is people just saying
7:30 am
i don't want to pay this. some people are saying it's causing a lot of accidents. so there is some -- i don't know if it's legislation or lawsuits going on. there are some people trying to get these things either removed or reduced. in one jurisdiction i think the mayor actually received a ticket and he said we are pulling them down. when someone of authority gets one, they come out. host: what about the argument in new jersey that people dusts slowdown when they see red- light? should there be a cultural change? caller: you would think so, definitely. i will admit, i have done it myself. ve to time it.
7:31 am
now that i'm a father with a young son, i am so much safer with my driving. it's a cultural thing where people in different regions tend to drive differently. our folks tend to blow yellow light. i am in favor of red light camera is as long as they are calibrated properly, and properly, and -- timed properly, and they are used in a manner where people who are not stuck in certain situations are automatically given a ticket. host: let's look at this story.
7:32 am
bob in seneca, missouri, an independent caller. do you have red light camera sorry you live? caller: yes, it few in the
7:33 am
joplin area to the north. as a truck driver, i have driven the entire country. i've been everywhere except for rhode island, so i have seen behavior. looking at the accidents that caught on camera when it comes to the accident investigations, you did mention liability a few minutes ago, i wonder if people realize how serious the consequences of liability, future insurance problems, actual possible criminal prosecution for their actions and their behavior? when you put the camera image of their accident before a judge or lawyer, there will be no denying that they were at fault, they were liable and possibly negligent. you could get in a lot of trouble for that. i wonder if you have any opinion
7:34 am
on that? host: we will ask our callers. you can respond to what bob is talking about. this shows what states have what laws. dennis in milwaukee, a democratic line. caller: ok, i am just calling because of two of your callers. you tried to tell the first one of the second one came on and said the same thing. obama has nothing to do with the cameras. it is your local representatives, your city or county. the federal government gets no money from it, so they have nothing to do with it. that's all i want to say. host: there were concerned
7:35 am
about the federal government playing big brother and using this as " one way to keep tabs on americans. what do you think about that argument? caller: that is dumb, too. it is your city. they can -- the police can keep tabs on you with the cameras, of course, but it still has nothing to do with the federal government's. it is your local municipality. if they want to keep tabs on you, they can. host: here is our latest facebook poll in the question of whether you think red-light chemists make the streets safer. sandy is our next caller in alabama, republican. caller: all the red-light cameras are revenue generators. they don't put them up because
7:36 am
they are concerned about safety or anything else. they are only there to make whatever community it is a little extra cash where they don't have to pay a, a to be on the streets to catch people. they can get it through the camera's. -- they don't have to pay a cop to be on the street. there's no concern for people. host: on twitter -- before the worth, texas, independent, marc. caller: yes,. i just recently got a red-light ticket. the light was yellow. i have been licensed for 45 years. i know how to drive. that light -- they showed me on
7:37 am
the camera where it was red for 0.2 seconds. that means i was under it when it turned red. i was really upset. i said i would pay the $70. fort worth is not poor. host: do you think about challenging it in court? caller: yes, but then there are court costs. like someone said earlier, the judges make sure it does not go in your favor. i just paid it and went on. host: will it change your behavior? caller: oh, yes. because now if someone runs into
7:38 am
the back of me, i'm going through sue them with fort worth's name on it. i'm not know. it just upset me. i have been run over once in 1980. in a car accident i broke my neck in 1973. i don't want to know more accidents. understand why they want to set you up where new to have an accident. look at as take a couple other stories in the news. secretary of state john carey will be touring europe and the mideast. israel is not on the itinerary. -- john kerry.
7:39 am
he will deliver his first major speech as a member of president obama's cabinet today at the university of virginia at 11:00 a.m. and c-span cameras will be there. we will bring that to you live this morning on c-span1. you can also find that on our website [indiscernible] . the supreme court takes on campaign funds. the story in the wall street journal.
7:40 am
and this also from the wall street journal. the court finds -- also, looking at the supreme court, from the washington post --
7:41 am
looking at a couple other stories in the news, this one, gas prices -- we're asking you this morning whether you think red light camera is make your streets safer. we have had a fair number of priests and facebook comments.
7:42 am
patrick is on the phone from frederick, maryland, democratic line. caller: hi. thatust calling to say red-light cameras are likely to protect pedestrians and fellow drivers. before they are put in place, show compelling evidence that there's been a major infraction of traffic signs. before they are put into place, the city it should conduct a trial run that says this is where safety was before the cameras and this is where safety is during the trial run. if there's a significant difference, then the courts should allow them to put the cameras up.
7:43 am
just doing this or revenue is a shakedown of the citizens and that should not be allowed. the burden should be on the city's. host: from jim -- carol from utah, republican. caller: i am from pleasant grove. host: what you think about these cameras? caller: i am for them. i want to reduce the incidence of accidents and deaths that do occur when people go through those of red lights and the rate of high-speed. the cameras do make a difference. i have a wellness background. any way that we can change the save lives is a
7:44 am
good thing, and there's a lot of evidence that shows these are very effective. i don't always think there's a big monetary difference. if there is, i'm ok with that as well, because if it saves our cities some money, that's a good thing. i don't think the police can be everywhere. idon't know why know what-- don't know why people want police to be on every corner. host: on twitter -- our facebook poll, twice as many folks say red light camera don't make streets safer. our can see that on facebook page.
7:45 am
you can still weigh in on that. one last tweet -- coming up next, we will change gears and talk about policy and politics and the looming sequester cuts, coming up later with megan hughes of bloomberg tv. up next, the top of a programs and departments at risk for wasting money. a new risk list names 30 areas to watch. >> ♪ from the very start, we told the board that the approach we want to take, which was pretty straightforward. remember, we were sent there to fix gm. that was the mission is to go
7:46 am
make this thing a viable company again. so we were all focused and that brought the message we are born to design, build, and sell the world's best vehicles, we are going to move quickly, we need your support, and we need your input. and so we changed a few things about the board meeting. we shorten them considerably. we stayed away from the details or did not get into the weeds on how to build a car, but the bigger question of financing, loral, positioning, marketing. the board was very supportive of that. we kept them informed and we just took off. >> leading general motors through bankruptcy and a government bailout, the former chairman and ceo, sunday night at 9:00 this weekend on c-span2. look for more "book tv online.
7:47 am
>> if blockade is the principal naval strategy of the northern states, the principal naval strategy of the southern states is commerce. one gun on a pivot right there between the masts. one is all you need your going after merchant ships. if you caught a merchant ship, the idea was come along side and put a prize crew on board, take it to a port where a prize court judge could adjudicate it, sell it at auction, and you got to keep all the money. because the private hearing depends entirely on the profit motives, the ship owner pays the men and the ship itself, supplies of food, and the officers, he expects a return on his money. the crew expected prize money. without friendly port where they could be condemned and then sold, you cannot make a profit ering.ivate peeri
7:48 am
therefore, confederate privateer it only lasted three months or slightly longer. they found out they could make more money blockade-running. >> looking at the civil war at a, saturday night at 10:00 p.m. eastern, this weekend. >> "washington journal" continues. host: the government accountability office, strategic issues managing director chris mihm. guest: my pleasure. host: the gao puts out a "high risk list". guest: the issue began in 1990. what we saw was a persistent set of management challenges the agencies were facing and it was undermining things and putting public safety at risk
7:49 am
and financial risks. we wanted to focus attention in the administration and congress to getting the persistent challenge is resolved. that generated a high risk program. once an issue goes on the "high risk list", you do end up getting the top level of tension and eventually many of these issues do get soft. host: what are you looking for? guest: fundamentally, we're looking for significant financial risks to the federal government and taxpayers. is there a public safety risk to the taxpayers? in recent years we have been looking more, are there issues in need of a broad transformation? so it's not just issues where there is waste, fraud, and abusive programs, although there is some back. it is also areas in need of a broad transformation across government. there are a number of high-risk issues associated with that. host: how does an issue get added to the list? guest: every two years be issued
7:50 am
a "high risk list" with each new congress, to help inform its oversight agenda. the two years leading up to that, we are doing a lot of work and programs across government. we go to a very disciplined process internally at g.a. 0 and we published our criteria so agencies can see this on our website where you can see the criteria when we put a program or agency on the "high risk list". we go through that process. we see how much is at risk in terms of finances. d.c. public safety issues are risk. then we make a judgment as to whether or not it has met the criteria. gao find problems occur within a particular agency or does it rained across departments? guest: it's a combination of both. in some cases you see issues associated with the "high risk list" where it's an individual agency at play. one that on the "high risk list"
7:51 am
from the beginning is enforcement of tax laws. when it came off the "high risk list", it was related to the irs and business system modernization because of the progress they've made. if we also increasingly see schematic ones that you mentioned, food safety, where you have something like 15 different agencies implementing 30 different fruits safety laws across government. that is something that spans across the entire. federal entire host: we're talking about the "high risk list" with chris mihm. let's look at some of the highlights of the 2013 list, including medicare and medicaid, a federal disability programs -- the stuff about medicare and medicaid. guest: medicare is the one that has been on from the beginning, starting in 1990. there's a variety of reasons that it's on the "high risk list". one of which is dealing with improper payments. medicare is a huge program.
7:52 am
the last time there was an analysis done, in at $44 billion in improper payments. the good news part of that is that we now have estimates because of our work that has been done and health and human services, estimates of exactly what part of the medicare program are most subject to the improper payments. that has enabled medicare to put in place a set of processes that they're not able to target areas of potential improper payments for the pavements are made. it's much easier to stop something before happens rather than go after the money afterwards. that's one of the other reasons they've been put on the "high risk list". how do we shipped the focus from pay for services to pay for results. and as the applications for
7:53 am
medicare as well. medicaid is a series of related issues, one of which is also improper payments. others dealing with what we learned or what's hhs learns from the demonstration project they use and how they apply those demonstration projects. in both of those cases, it is also just a signal of the inherent risk and the complexity of the type of problems they are confronting. the good news is in both cases the agencies understand the challenges they face and are working aggressively to address those issues. it just takes time. and time host: the mention the enforcement of tax laws. go into detail about where there are problems and where there's room for improvement. guest: that's another one that's been on from the beginning. this is focusing on the tax gap, which is the difference between legally owed taxes and what the irs collects. the net tax gap has been estimated in 2006 to be about
7:54 am
$385 billion per year. that is the gap between what is legally owed and what is eventually collected. in a sense, that's free money. in other words, it does not require an act of congress to think about raising or lowering rates. that is something we already decided legally should be paid. we see the irs needs to put in place of three parts strategy to deal with the tax gap. first company to focus on services, that is when you need information from the irs, are you able to get it and is it accurate and timely information? second, the enforcement area. we need to make sure they have the right set of tools they can enforce the tax laws and respectful of privacy and the rule want. third, we need to think about the tax gap in the context of tax reform and simplification, making it easier for people to understand what their responsibilities are when they pay taxes. if we can make progress in those
7:55 am
three, we can reduce the tax gap. we will never get to zer. we don't want to live in a society that it would be so invasive where you would have a zero tax gap. host: chris mihm is strategic issues managing director at gao. the high risk list comes out every two years, a look at government operations that are at high risk for fraud, waste, abuse, mismanagement, and to adjust tighten their bottom line. gao testified before congress last week. here's what the house oversight committee chairman said about what congress should do with the list. >> it's clear that many of the areas on high risk are perennial high risk. 17 areas of this year's "high risk list" have been on that list more than a decade. six have been on the list since its inception. i don't expect overnight to fix
7:56 am
dod procurement or to take medicare now becoming our largest total expense and eclipsing, if you include the duel recipients, eclipsing social security and our department of defense individual spending. i don't expect to fix its overnight. with the the help of gao, our committee and other committees of congress have an opportunity to attack each of these areas and make real improvements. host: house oversight committee chairman darrell issa. chris mihm, what does congress do with the recommendations? guest: what you saw from the chairman was a great example of the commitment , as an extra holding oversight and making sure agencies have the tools they need to address a high-risk issues. as i mentioned, we issued this with each new congress in the
7:57 am
hopes that in helps inform part of the congressional oversight agenda. we have been pleased over the years to see that is the case. we have determined darrell issa's commitment and ranking member elijah cummings on the senate side, the senate homeland security and government affairs committee. we have equal commitment from the chairman and ranking member. they make sure and i look at a high risk is to ask what are the crosscutting issues congress needs to deal with? equally valuable is we see individual committees will look at the issues that their committees and jurisdictions may have on "high risk list" and they go after those as well. the key to so much of this is making sure that we have effective and continuing oversight. many of these high-risk problems are technically challenging, but it's not as though we don't know what the fix is. it's often the failure to follow through and if failure of accountability and asking people
7:58 am
where are we and what progress are we making? if we're not making sufficient progress, let's figure out what the fix is. that's what the contract -- that's what the congressional oversight is so important. host: here are the numbers to call -- tony is up first from satellite beach, florida, republican. caller: thank you for c-span. i have a suggestion that would help. we have a bunch of guys down here playing tennis and are on disability and they're running around the court. they are on a lot of different federal programs. those of us to play the game by the rules, we wonder what is going on. they got 15 guys on the real wrote who are former employees, all playing tennis. -- on the long island rail road.
7:59 am
one of the biggest problems is help with enforcement. if people are caught defrauding the government, if there was a whistle blower program were the people caught with after surrender 75% of their net worth and maybe 15% going to the whistleblower, all the suddenness of the rules of enforcement, if they were penalized so that people really had a reason not to do this -- they don't put people in jail long enough for this sample penalties don't seem to be strong enough to change people's minds from disobeying the law. host: touching on what tony's talk about, -- guest: there's a couple things. and i want to get to his point on disability issues, because that is on the "high risk list". has an area re you can report waste, fraud, and abuse,
8:00 am
and mismanagement that uc. it's under the watchdog tab. more directly, you more directly, you can go to each individual agency page and they have a director that has the responsibility of investigating cases of waste, fraud and abuse. one of the issues on the high risk list is the disability program. there are a couple of things in play. 45 federal programs are designed to assist people with employment if they are disabled. what we have found is that while each program was put in place for the right reasons, cumulatively it ends up with fragmentation and overlapping duplication. the white house domestic policy council is taking action to see
8:01 am
if we could better court in eight these programs, but that is a work in progress -- coordinate these programs, but that is a work in progress. the second issue is making sure that we have modernized definitions and applying those definitions of disability. many definitions have not been updated in recent years to deal with medical advances, technological advances in terms of adaptive technology individuals with disabilities can use, or the change in work. it is hard to do and it takes time. that is a work in progress. with the aging of the workforce and other factors we have seen an increase in the number of disability-related cases. they are working to keep ahead of that, but that is hard to do.
8:02 am
>> -- host: calvin is in winston-salem, north carolina. go ahead. caller: thank you. recently both the president and members of both parties have talked about tax reform as something that should be done. we have heard about it for a while. .ax reform is on chris' list i am curious as to how it would happen -- the white house proposing something, a committee picking it up? the second question is related to the fiscal cliff. when we hear either the president or members of congress talk about what it means in the context of jobs and services lost in changes that will happen rather dramatically
8:03 am
, where does the gao, your list , come into play? guest: thank you for the question. there are two things related to that. tax reform itself is not on the high risk list. i referenced that it is one of the potential solutions to addressing the tax gap. both committees of congress that have primary spots ability for tax issues -- senate finance and house ways and means -- are considering reform and the ranking members have talked about that recently. our role in that, since it involves enormous policy questions and we are not a policy shop. congress ultimately makes those decisions -- our titular role has been identified -- our particular role has been identifying a prim or -- a
8:04 am
primer that is a short document that has the key issues we need to keep in mind like equity. we are thinking about the policy changes that we want to make, we need to make sure we think about what it looks like when it is administered or written in the tax code. that is one of the things we have been pressing and the other is greater transparency over tax expenditures. this is spending that takes place through the tax code. in many cases it is exactly the right policy tool you want to use, the most efficient and effective, so that is not our beef. rather, the question is making sure they are subjected to the same performance test that other federal programs are.
8:05 am
are we asking questions about what we are getting in terms of rico -- results? as you go to the website, you can see these documents and related documents on tax reform. on the second, in terms of jobs dealing with sequestration, that is not something that is immediately relevant to the high risk list. it is something that we are keeping an eye on on behalf of the congress through other venues. host: what are some new additions to the list? guest: we had to that came on and to that came off. that gives you a came on where mentioned mitch -- managing financial risk due to climate change and gaps in weather satellites. managing financial risk due to climate change -- as we know, we are in a time of climate change
8:06 am
and that has four financial implications for the federal government. first, government infrastructure, buildings and land -- the government owns or manages thousands of domains and about -- of buildings, and about 30% of the landmass in the united states, so severe weather events have enormous cost for the federal government. the second thing is dealing with the federal insurance programs in place -- crop insurance, flood insurance -- when we look at those we see that business models and risk portfolios have not been updated to reflect recent climate science. there was helpful legislation passed in the last congress that will authorize the updating of the flood insurance program in
8:07 am
terms of maps used, and that will be important to consider the climate considerations. the next big implication is federal assistance to state and local governments. particularly on infrastructure, there are billions of dollars that go out to help in highway, road and bridge construction. we need to make sure that state and local governments, as they make investment decisions, have the climate adaptation information they need to understand the risks associated with particular projects. the fourth is disaster payments generally. this is something both mr. cummings and mr. issa -- there was a press conference they held before that hearing and one of the points they made was we need a sorting out of roles and responsibilities, or at least consideration of roles and responsibilities between levels
8:08 am
of government for disaster responsibilities. that was an issue we had seen on the high risk list and one reason the financial risk of climate was on the list. the other deals with weather satellites, which is related to the climate issue. in this case, there is a potential gap do to delays. that could start as early as 2014 and last as long as 53 months. we need to make sure that noaa has contingency plans in place. we are not going to go dark, but there will be gaps in the information. how would they fill the gap and how are they making sure that integrates into the climate models? that is the risk associated with weather satellites. host: chris mihm with the
8:09 am
government accounting the lady -- accountability office. lee. georgia. republican. lee, are you with us? we lost lee. jerome. and filling it. democrats line. -- pennsylvania. democrats line. caller: thank you for taking my call. thank you to the 2 -- cable companies for c-span. i do not know if i can articulate this right, but one of the things that has affected revenue in society has been the advancements in machinery and tax write-ry it's a
8:10 am
off -- gets a tax write off and it might be taking the place of three or four workers, maybe more in the machine does not pay any taxes. it gets a tax write-off, which is just the opposite of paying taxes. that is the only thing i would like to say. thank you. guest: there is a report we are working on that will look at the largest corporate tax expenditures that will be out in the next couple of weeks and it will be informative to the point that jerome was making in assessing in particular the tax expenditure he was mentioning dealing with advanced appreciation. host: one other item that made
8:11 am
the list is the loss of federal and police as they retire -- the loss of knowledge and manpower. here is a story from "washington post." it says that shortages of employees with certain skills and the pending loss of many experienced workers one other ie the list remains a major challenge for the government. what are the implications? guest: there are a couple of things. where it gets to a concern is the individual skills area. when you look at, for example, the skills in to a concern is the individual skills area. when you look at, for example ct we need in the federal
8:12 am
government to make sure systems are protected, dc consistent and persistent skills gaps -- you see consistent and persistent skill gaps there. government to make sure systems are protected so that we can mae sureyou see skills gaps and makg sure we have petroleum engineers with the deepwater hon that we know how to respond. the reason i mention those is those are also skills gaps that contribute to other issues being on the high risk list. the point is these skills gaps in the retirement boom that will eventually come -- demographics
8:13 am
is destiny, so eventually people do have to retire, and when that comes that has mission implications for agencies if they have not effectively planned for that. the turnover itself is not bad, even in high numbers, but if it is not planned and the turnover happens in the specific areas that you are not on top of, you can be undermining mission performance. >> -- host: skip, clayton, north carolina. demographics isindependent caller. caller: there is so much fraud and abuse in federal and state jobs. i have seen it myself. not only that, you have all of these unions. let's say you are paving a road in new jersey. i could go to a person's house and deliver asphalt at $27 a ton, but when i'm doing it on a job that is unionized, they are paying $127 a ton. i mean, that is the problem with your roads and bridges. they are done by union people, which cost us triple the amount of what it should cost us, and all of these federal jobs are all nothing but getting in the
8:14 am
job and finding out how to make money by cutting costs here, and not doing their job there. i have seen people sleeping on their job that are supposed to check the asphalt for the temperature and they do it all the time. host: let's get a response from chris mihm. guest: i cannot speak to the specific examples that he mentioned, but with transportation, that is on the high-risk list, and we are talking probably hundreds of billions of dollars in coming decades that we needed -- need to be invested in infrastructure in the united states. there seems to be widespread agreement on that and that the highway trust fund is certainly not going to be able to do it. it has not been increased since , so when you990 's
8:15 am
have seen in recent years is congress putting more money into infrastructure funding, so the theoretical link between the highway trust fund asphalt at $a ton, gas taxes and infrastructure investments has been broken. we see a need at the policy level for congress, the administration and ultimately the american people to step back and say how much are we willing to invest in infrastructure or how will we get the money to make the investments we need to make? that is an enormous challenge and a means to be not just surface transportation in terms of roads and bridges, but also in terms of rail. this is one area where congress passed legislation that was helpful, requiring performance metrics and real, clear goals
8:16 am
for what we want for infrastructure in terms of safety, mobility and congestion that will help to guide decisions on investment, but more needs to be done. the big question of how much we are willing to spend and how we will get the money is something we need to join. host: right wing on twitter wants to know which programs have the most waste and fraud? guest: that is not something we rank. certainly, the high risk list, if you are interested in areas that are the highest risk of waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement or those in need of fundamental transformation, that is a good place to start when you look at the risks to the federal government and taxpayers. host: the "fiscal times" headline from your report is "
8:17 am
the 10 biggest threats to your taxpayer dollars." is your report a list of areas where people can tighten up spending, but also a reflection of where money needs to be spent ultimately to save money in the long run? when you talk about climate change negation, the aging workforce? guest: absolutely. that is such a great point, libby. in this fiscal environment, it is such a great -- even when we have good metrics and good assurance that investments will return savings, the challenges of the moment make it quite difficult to be willing to make those investments. certainly, in many of the areas on the high risk list, they are about better managing the federal government investments.
8:18 am
you see that in contracting dealing with nasa, dob, weapons systems at -- dod, weapons systems acquisitions. it is all about how the federal government manages hundreds of billions of dollars in investments to make sure that they come in on schedule, cost and time -- and quality? that is difficult to do. part of that is because of the complexity of the types of things we are contracting. if we are going for 100,000 of your c-span coffee mugs, it is easy to define how you want the color scheme or the logo, but it gets much more difficult in the world we are in today when we are asking for weapons systems for the james webb telescope, or
8:19 am
huge investment in energy products. that gets very difficult to write those contracts and strike the right balance between protecting the government's interests, that is getting what we want, and then understanding that we go into this in many cases not knowing what we want because of the complexities of the contract we are involved in. how you work with contractors in that environment is at the root of a lot of high-risk issues. host: bruce is our next caller in marco island, florida. republican. caller: i have written to my two senators that are democrats, and the congressman that is a republican regarding social security benefits. i am a senior citizen, but you
8:20 am
could barely buy flowers for $255. my feel is the cost to administer this program is many times the $255 benefit. a suggestion to my representatives was take a look at this and savings by cutting that out. how could you apply that towards making social security healthier? the problem i have is i am a college graduate and the only people i have to speak through our my representatives, and the gao supports congress, the senate and so forth, and there are a lot of people out here that have some brains and can not work a congress that is not functioning, ok? we have some ideas on cost saving. there are tens of thousands of these types of cost savings.
8:21 am
how in the world can people with intelligence get the on this gridlock to help this deficit program? i will listen to your response. thank you very much. guest: thank you very much for the comment. there are a couple of things there i cannot speak to social rticular point that you are raising, but the water issue is how do we seek out and structure opportunities for system -- citizen engagement. there is something called the open government initiative. it is actually a worldwide effort, something the united states participates in with dozens of other countries around the world, looking for opportunities, largely using social media, but not exclusively, to have the
8:22 am
opportunity for citizens to better engage and raise these types of ideas you are suggesting to government outside of the normal you have total process. that is something the administration is working on, and again it is a worldwide effort. host: tim joins us on the independent line from maine. caller: thank you. i have a question about the amount of oil that is being pulled out of the ground on public lands and what is being reported does not make sense. especially after the deepwater horizon, they reported 1000 barrels a day, and it turned out to be 50,000 barrels a day. today, they are claiming 6 million barrels a day that they are pulling out of these wells and it does not add up. is your agency looking at that? guest: that is a great question,
8:23 am
and it is an issue on the high risk list. if you go to the site and look at that part of the report you can see exactly what the story is there. we put oil and gas revenue on the high risk list after the did the water horizon -- after the deepwater horizon incident for three reasons. one was the organization that was underway for responsibilities for these at the department of the interior. the second was the oil and gas revenue issue, which you raised. then, the lack of skills. the need for petroleum engineers and other professions
8:24 am
within the department of interior to make sure they could effectively manage and oversee the programs they are responsible for. and other professions within the department of interior to make sure they could effectively manage and oversee the programs they are responsible for. they have made progress with the wii organization, and we were able to narrow the list on the high risk list. the remaining issues are the revenue issue and the human capital issuethe remaining issue revenue issue and the human capital issue. directly on the revenue issue, the key point is we need better data on exactly how much we should be getting in terms of revenue. it averages between $9 billion and $10 billion a year in terms of revenue from oil and gas leases. that is both a lot of money and also one of the major nontax revenue sources for the federal government, so it is an important revenue stream. the point to the high risk list, we do not have good information on how much we should be getting. that is something interior recognizes. it is a long haul for them, and more work needs to be done. the basic point behind him's question was spot on -- tim's
8:25 am
question was spot on. host: as we scrolled through the list, it includes climate change and mitigation, modernizing the regulatory system and the federal role in housing finance. the post office is also on the list and then funding the surface transportation system. bill, norfolk, connecticut, democrat. caller: there is a lot of waste and fraud in military expenditures. sailors on ships told me when they to the high risk list, we came back to port they through good food overboard. there are also other instances of the army having to take weapons and airplanes that they do not even want to maintain or want. also, in foreign aid, we are paying foreign aid to countries
8:26 am
that are better off than us. guest: the department of defenses is on there in several places -- supply chain management, business systems, business transformation, dod contracting, weapons systems acquisition. one of the points that bill was making on excess inventory, that is one of the areas. dealing with supply chain management, they have billions of dollars in inventory over and above what they need and the department of defense is seeking to do it better job in how they managed that a making sure you do not have more than what you need. not only is that an upfront cost, but you have to store it, and dispose of it at some point
8:27 am
if you are not going to use it. there is an issue with excess inventory. host: nashville, tennessee. go ahead, caller. caller: i am confused. we want to talk about the little pieces of debris in the corner, not the big issues in the room. before i made this call, i got on my laptop and i pulled up the dow jones. i look to see what oil companies have made to see -- made in profits. the guy next door, i do not care if he is doing fraud on disability or food stamps. what i care about is the trillions of dollars that these people are getting that to not need it. when i retire, i will get approximately what i pay in social security a week. i will get that in a month.
8:28 am
let's address the bigger issues. why are we giving not billionaires, but trillion anders -- trillionaires my money? guest: it gets back to the discussion about tax reform. there is a policy issue that is something gao does not weigh in on, but how do you structure the tax code and the complexity of that is something we have been advising the congress on, particularly with tax expenditures, making sure they are subjected to the performance test. asking, when they are put in place, what is the goal for this? how will we measure performance? let's see if we are the performance that was promised. if we are, it was a worthy
8:29 am
investment, and if not we need to revisit whether we have it. host: chris mihm, what are you hoping to see happen next? guest: the big thing is continued progress in focus by the administration. this administration and president bush did the same thing, putting high-level attention on these high-risk issues, periodic meetings with us and the agencies to get together and say where are we, and how will we address the underlying issue -- where are we in terms of that progress come and what more needs to be done? we need to see that leadership and management there. we need improvement plans in place, and make sure they are yielding results. i know my bosses was in congress will continue to have oversight. many of these areas, agencies
8:30 am
have gotten additional statutory guidance on what needs to be achieved. if you look at the underlying problem that cuts across many of these it is the need for organizations to work together better across organizational boundaries, either with federal agencies, government, or contractors. if we can address that, we will get to the underlying root cause in many of these high-risk areas. host: it is the need for organizations to work that is ao website. our guest is chris mihm. thank you. guest: it has been my pleasure. host: coming up, bloomberg news megan hughes talks to us about the sequester, and later on, "
8:31 am
christian science monitor" looks at where the jobs are. first, an update from c-span radio. ask longtime gun-control advocate sarah brady is coming to annapolis to show support for a measure backed by governor martin o'malley. he is the -- she is the wife of jim brady, who was analyzed in the assassination attempt on ronald reagan. the measure would ban assault weapons and strengthen licensing requirements for handguns, increase school security and address mental health issues related to firearm access. today, vice president joe bident awards the medal of valor to emergency responders, recognizing those who risked their own safety to save or protect others. four of those medals will be reported posthumously. we will see later today if the
8:32 am
momentum in home construction has continued when the commerce department releases housing starts and building permits for january. the last report showed they started building homes in december at the fastest pace since 2008. wall street will open this morning with the dow approaching an all-time high. yesterday it gained 84 points to close at 14,000 36 -- 14,036. the record high as 14,164. those are the latest headlines. >> the communism of china is basically communism in name only two preserve the power of the members of the communist party, but it has now become a capitalist haven. communism now, they talk it great length about marxism, but
8:33 am
it is all about preserving the parties power economically as the country continues to grow. in north korea, it is all about preserving the power of the military and the dynasty there. it has nothing to do with what karl marx envisioned. someone can do a fascinating book of how communism when it moved into asia diverged into something different than the communism that appeared in europe and eastern european countries. >> former washington post correspondent and harvard fellow keith richburg on 30 years of reporting and insight from around the world sunday at 8 p.m. on c-span's q&a. >> "washington, journal --
8:34 am
washington journal" continues. host: megan hughes works for bloomberg news. we are talking about the sequester. you can see this highlighted -- nine days until the automatic spending cuts go into affect. megan hughes, is the debate how to stop the sequester, or who is at fault? guest: the debate is about how to stop the sequester, but we hear a constant blame game. nobody wants the sequester to happen. my e-mail inbox is flooded with laundry list of what is going to be cut. at the white house 70,000 children would lose headstart, there would be fewer food inspectors, the president appeared with first responders yesterday, really trying to highlight and hit home this
8:35 am
week. i get those e-mails from republicans as well. neither side wants to see this happen, the revenue continues to be the big sticking point had -- sticking point. host: john boehner in an op-ed today says "obama invented the sequester in the summer of 2011 to avoid facing up to america spending problem." how has the finger-pointing been going? guest: the white house response to republicans saying this came from the white house is congress signed off on this, both parties signed off on this, and polls have shown that republicans might take some of the blame when you are talking about this balanced approach that the president keeps talking about.
8:36 am
host: let's listen to president obama speaking yesterday in front of first responders and he got into the origins of the sequester. [video clip]>> congress passed a law saying that if parties could not agree on the $4 trillion goal, arbitrary budget cuts would start to take effect this year, and the design was to make them so unattractive and unappealing that democrats and republicans would actually get together and find a good compromise of good, sensible cuts as well as closing tax loopholes and so forth. so, this was all designed to say we cannot do these bad cuts , let's do something smarter. that was the whole point of this so-called sequestration. host: president obama speaking yesterday.
8:37 am
bloomberg government has a sequestration powerbroker monitor. what have you learned from this? guest: they have been tracking what brokers say, whether they sound optimistic or pessimistic about a deal. they look at the administration, congressional democrats and republicans and the business community, and you will see that the business -- the administration has sounded the most optimistic, like a deal could happen. then you look at the business community. they would be next in line at this point. congressional democrats plummeted in the past week in terms of how likely they think we will get to a deal. they are about even with congressional republicans, who have been the most pessimistic. what is really interesting
8:38 am
about this is it comes on the eve of congressional democrats actually having a vote. democrats have a proposal they will vote on next week that would replace the sequester. clearly, it is evidence that they do not think the deal they have come up with will not go through. it is a 110 billion dollar plan, and the sticking point is 50% of that is cut, and the other 50% would be tax increases. host: charles, on our democrat line. caller: i have a comment. i do not think this thing is going to happen. i think it is the republicans trying to get what they want, but the democrats will stand strong. they will get down to the last couple of days, and they will come up with something maybe just to kick it down the road
8:39 am
just to get past march 1. the balanced approach will be to have limited cuts in the same amount of revenue, and republicans do not want to agree on that. this is all to go against the president. host: that's getting response from megan hughes. guest: charles, that is interesting. one potential scenario that i have heard could unfold -- march 1, again, it is nine days away -- seeing a deal in the final hours is not unheard of. we have seen that on capitol hill in the past. another thing that is talked about is this is not the same as the fiscal cliff for the debt ceiling where the next day everybody's taxes are going to go up. these budget cuts would happen over time, and a lot of the furloughs would not happen for a
8:40 am
month or two months. the next, big budget deadline is march 27, when the continuing resolution will expire, and meeting the will shut down if there is not a budget deal reached by march 27. there is talk of a sequestration deal being rolled into that so that march 27 might be the next deadline to look at. host: poco -- "the new york times" has this story -- "dire forecast on effective budget cuts." here is bloomberg businessweek looking at a reboot for the simpson-bowles plan. are we hearing anything new from them and what has the reaction been? guest: what is interesting is we have not had a ton of reaction from both sides.
8:41 am
here is generally what their plan looks like -- 2.4 trillion dollars over the course of 10 years. that is scaled back. their other big deficit commission was around $4 trillion. one quarter of that would come from medicare and medicaid savings. another quarter would come from changes to the tax code, about $600 billion worth. we have not heard anything from speaker boehner directly on this, but judging from his editorial in "the wall street journal" today, the $600 billion in revenue takes the plan off of the table, at least in the near-term. the rest of it would be cut. the white house spokesperson jay carney commented on the plan yesterday, simply saying it is an affirmation of the balanced approach. it does go further than the
8:42 am
president suggested, but the fact that it has revenue in it, they see as affirmation. host: megan hughes is a correspondent for bloomberg television and a reporter for bloomberg government. we are also joined from students on our c-span bus which is touring to promote our new series "first ladies -- influence and image." the bus is at james madison university in the shenandoah valley, off interstate 81, about two hours southwest of washington, dc. there are about 2000 graduate and undergraduate students. we would like to give a special thanks to chris lake. first up is liz, a student at jm
8:43 am
.ou -- james madison yo >> how do you respond to the comment that guns do not kill people, people kill people? guest: the white house is continuing to press on this topic. just this week, vice president biden, i am told, will be in the neck ticket -- connecticut, and the president took a lot of time on this in the state of the union address. you asked about the gun show loophole. from what the white house has said, there is some agreement on the idea of universal background checks, which would include closing the gun show loophole.
8:44 am
one thing i have to point out here is we have not heard a lot from the house on this. we are still in very early stages. what we are watching on capitol hill is the senate judiciary committee. the white house believes that it has done its part with vice president biden releasing his task force recommendations. senator leahy, the chairman of the committee, as that report, -- as the report, and is considering the things that are reasonably feasible like trafficking and background checks, and then there would be high-capacity magazines that would have to come with a second vote. we are very much watching the senate judiciary committee. host: we are talking politics and government with megan hughes
8:45 am
a bloomberg news. new york. cal. caller: good morning. there was a great documentary called "cliffhanger" which eliminated a lot of points about this budget issue and sequestration. i recommend a lot of people watch that. it is also very frightening to me how everybody on all levels seems settled into their positions as to how this will play out, and how that leads to the inevitability of the sequestration. congress seems to be, on some level, waiting for obama just to leave office. there is obama, who feels he does not want to deal with congress, so the only way to maintain a good face is to go
8:46 am
on this road trip and sell his argument to the american people on press conferences and television appearances. then there are you folks, the media, which seemed so amused by the endless circles and that and the president seemed to be running in, and judging by the earlier comments, whether you are on the left or the right, you are perfectly satisfied with your position because you are already entrenched in blaming the other side. is this what the next four years is going to be like in terms of legislation of any kind? guest: that is a tremendous question and i can hear the force -- the frustration in your voice. i have not seen that documentary, but i would be interested in checking that out.
8:47 am
your first question coming out of the gates is how does this end, how does this play out, and your representation of the standoff that we are seeing is accurate. in the white house news conference yesterday spokesman jay carney said the president's door is open, but the question was raised, his door is open, but how come he will not knock on house speaker john boehner's door? we are not even seen talks at this point. in terms of how this ends, i think we have real issues when it comes to do -- to the deficit and the debt that both parties need to address. on tax reform, the president mentioned corporate tax reform in the state of the union address, and that is something republican house member dave camp has been working a lot on. there are some areas of
8:48 am
agreement. it is not just this march 1 deadline in the headlines. we have the continuing resolution march 27. we have both the house and the senate saying they will come out with a budget this year and we are still waiting for the president's budget. there is the potential for some agreement on some of those issues. host: james madison university and our next student, meg, a former c-span in -- in turn. -- in turn. what is your question for megan hughes? >> did the super pacs impact the 2012 election, and do you see corporations playing a bigger role if you -- future elections? guest: the super pacs got a lot
8:49 am
of headlines but i have not seen anything that has given me a sense of how that has played out. the cause it was the first time we saw such a presence, i think we need a few more elections with this new player, the super pac, that book has yet to be written. you bring this up at a timely moment with the supreme court saying they will review a very important campaign contribution issue. host: kelly in montana. republican line. caller: i have more of a comment than a question. the thing that i hear a lot of people talking about is how our president is willing to compromise, and i do not see any compromise in this guy. i have been a republican since i can remember, and one thing that stuck out to me about bill
8:50 am
clinton was his willingness to compromise. i did not much like the guy, but he was a good compromise and. he knew -- compromiser. he knew how to reach across the aisle and the country benefited for it. now you have a guy that has no willingness to compromise. he is so far to the left and nobody will get past him. host: let's get a response from megan hughes. guest: kelly, your appreciation for what president clinton did, moving to the middle and brokering deals, it is certainly a valid point. in terms of whether or not president obama is a compromiser, one good group to ask would be some of the democrats because i think they would contend that when it comes to entitlement reforms and things he has put on the table that those would qualify as compromises, being open to
8:51 am
potential means testing or peeling back medicare benefits for higher income earners. the idea of change to cpi, looking at that with social security reform -- there are definitely some things that have riled up fellow democrats. host: let's go back to the c- span bus and hear from the student eiko. -- michael. >> good morning. with sequestration coming up on march 1, it seems likely that public opinion will fall on one side of the aisle with -- [no audio]host: it looks like we froze up the signal. guest: i think i saw where he was coming with that, asking which side of the aisle public
8:52 am
opinion would fall on, and i think both parties think they have the argument of the day in the argument of history on their side. we hear from president obama over and over again that americans are really looking for a balanced approach, that they want to see higher income earners pay their share as part of this deal and that revenue needs to be heart of this deal as well as cuts. -- be part of this deal as well as cuts. republicans see themselves having already made a deal and revenue at the beginning of the year and now it is time for the president to make those cuts. host: the first student at james madison asked about the gun issue. you had some hands-on experience at a gun range care what did you report and learn on?
8:53 am
guest: it was interesting for me, not being a gun owner, and the president talked about regionalism and how this resonates depending on whether you are from an urban area or a rural area. i went to virginia and i went to a gun store and i was able to shoot and 80 r-15, one the guns that would be banned. it was fascinating for me to be able to feel the power of this weapon, and also see quite gun- lovers -- why gun lovers are really behind this weapons and high-capacity magazines as well. for me, as a reporter, you want to see both sides, and being able to see what gun owners were defending was really fascinating for me. host: c-span will be at the blue
8:54 am
ridge arsenal tomorrow morning in chantilly, virginia, and our guests include larry pratt, president of gun owners of america, and "washington times . i went to virginia" columnist emily miller. live interviews will include talking with the shop owner on site as well as demonstrations, all on "washington journal those quote tomorrow morning started -- washington journal" starting tomorrow morning at 8:00 p.m. -- 8:00 a.m.. host: next caller. caller: it is impressive to see to women handling things this morning. now that i have made a friend for life, i want to say that i am a moderate democrat, and
8:55 am
everybody is making such a big deal, and the president is making a big deal over such minor cuts to the deficit. we have a deficit of trillions of dollars, and we are cutting 85 billion dollars. we are talking about cutting 3/10 of one percent, in the world is going to come to an end. this is crazy. we have to cut way more than this. we are only talking about less than one thirds of one percent. i think everyone in the beltway needs to get used to cutting 10 times that, only three percent, or maybe 20 times that. guest: tom, what you are talking about is in terms of the sequester for this year, the $85 billion, correct? host: we lost him, sorry. guest: i will operate under the
8:56 am
assumption that he was looking at that $85 billion number. in terms of the metrics that economists are talking about, tom, the target that we have heard is to reduce the debt-to- gdp ratio to less than 70% by the next decade. that is the metric of what we need to do to stabilize the debt. you raised a valid point that we need to go much further than that. that is the agreed-upon metric. the simpson-bowles proposal, two point $4 trillion over the next 10 years, would, according to simpson-bowles, get us there and the president has talked about $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years, and this is on top of $2.7 trillion in deficit reduction we have seen from the
8:57 am
budget control act and the fiscal cliff deal. host: andrew in middletown, new jersey. caller: good morning, c-span. first of all, i find it interesting that boehner put an op-ed page in "the wall street journal" blaming obama and the democrats and everybody else. i would like to take boehner down memory lane, where george bush -- does everybody remember the illegal war he started indirect and bush was there for eight years -- in iraq and bush was there for eight years? where does that money come from and we are still paying for it. now, if they have a revenue problem, let's talk about the gas tax credit given to the oil and gas industry that has had a
8:58 am
christmas party. who is going to pay for this? the average american who is losing their job, who has no health care. veterans will pay for this because cuts will be made to the va. they have already said cuts would be on the military bases. now, this blame game is going to be used as an election tool in the next election and the winners will be the congress in washington and the american people will be the losers. thank you very much. host: all right. middletown, new jersey. any reflections on what he had to say? guest: in referring to speaker
8:59 am
boehner's editorial, it is to point out that president obama is urging republicans to come to the table on his side and i believe he will do some interviews with different local television markets around the country, stressing what the sequester me just to balance that out. it is not a one-sided blame game, to be sure. you raised oil and gas tax credits. now, certainly, republicans have not put that specifically on the table, that they have said they are open to closing loopholes. when we talk about revenue, it it is not necessary to blanket the republican party. the syntax -- they said taxes as revenue raisers are not on the table, but in terms of closing loopholes is something they
9:00 am
said they would be in favor of, but what they want to do is lower rates. it is a nuance, but it is an important one. host: megan hughes, a reporter for bloomberg television and also for bloomberg government. she reported from the 2012 campaign trail and she has covered issues and topics at the affordable care act, state labor disputes and the battle over immigration issues. the next two to james madison university is troy. good morning. >> good morning. thank you for having me >> good morning. some of the overlap we have been seeing is on immigration reform. unfortunately, the policies have it -- have not been that substantive. this is the republican party trying to change more to
9:01 am
substance gabor's this the republican prepay changing the weight -- substance into its effort, or is this the republican party trying to change the way it approaches these people? guest: what are you referring to? >> we see the same party members jumping on board now whenever off in 2007. i wonder if that is a move by the republican party to try to change their image. guest: that is a great question. i'm glad you brought up immigration reform. we are seeing a lot of the same players that we saw in 2007 now involved in brokering the deal as far as the gang of eight. one of the things i think is really important to point out,
9:02 am
we have talked a lot about this proposal for the gang of eight and that is where everyone is looking right now, the senate. there was a lot of talk about a white house proposal being leaked, but the president has said repeatedly that he would prefer for something to have in congress and he does have a proposal ready if congress fails to act. back to the frame work involved, it is for border security and this is a framework, not a bill. once you start getting into those details, that is where the rubber meets the road and were you start seeing points of disagreement. but i think you're absolutely right in terms of there being a political impetus right now. it gets thrown a rock quite a bit that latinos voted 70% for president obama. the republican party is certainly looking to open up the
9:03 am
demographic for the republican party in elections down the road. there's a political motivation for getting something done. host: if you'd like to join the conversation, here are the root -- of the numbers. let's go to georgia. caller: the gentleman from new jersey who talked about the tax break for the oil company, the government makes six times and tax records -- in tax revenue from the oil company than the oil company makes in revenue on gas. he needs to check his facts before he makes the comment. on the superstation, it was the president's idea.
9:04 am
if we go back to the speech in november, 2011, he wants the republican party -- if we change these cuts, he will veto it. go back to that speech. is there. their president warned the republican party -- the president warned the republican party, if you change the cuts on sequestration, he will veto it. these cats need to happen and they will happen -- these cuts need drop-in and they will happen. 82 -- yesterday he made a 180 degree turn and blame them. all the president has ever done is blame george bush, the republicans for its dealers. host: will get to respond in a
9:05 am
moment. but first, here's a "washington post" story. guest: you bring up a couple of interesting points. i want to separate them out because i think there are a couple of different things that you are referencing. first, in terms of where sequestration came from and where it originated, there has been a lot of talk about that
9:06 am
coming from the white house. there is often cited a passage that came out of bob woodward's book that ought lot of republicans on the hell have used as their twitter handle. you might want to look that up -- republicans on the hill have used as there twitter handle. you might want to look that up. but secondly, talking about the vikto, where you're referring there is that the house has passed a couple of bills that would replace their sequestered, but what sets of cuts. i do not know that the president has ever been in favor of these cats. -- these cuts. we have been said all along by the framers that these are draconian cuts and were never supposed to take place. in at least one of those packages, i know the house was
9:07 am
looking at cutting back a number of the affordable care act provisions and how the funding of the exchanges would take place. that certainly was not. to be palatable to a lot of democrats. -- was not going to be palatable to a lot of democrats. host: our next ceridian -- our next student is julia kramer. >> do you think that the affordable care act is your tuesday? the use suspect -- is here to stay? the you suspect that they will alter its or that it has a chance of success? guest: when the supreme court decision came down, not only was the president reelected, but the supreme court upheld the law. for the foreseeable future, it is here. but in terms of how it is
9:08 am
funded and provisions that republicans may try to pass to gut the law, and what we're seeing in terms of compliance from republican governors, those are the questions we should be watching. but this is an important year in terms of the affordable care act and what is coming down the pike. some changes, like allowing people up to age 26 to stay on their parents' insurance, those seem to be well received. but coming up on october 1 is when the moment for the exchange program, or what dhhs is now calling the marketplace will be up and running january 1. there's a tremendous change going into place. it will be interesting to see how that plays out. host: mike is the next caller, from michigan. caller: i am a first-time caller. i couple of comments, one, with
9:09 am
all of the sequestered talk, in theory, if the government cuts any money, people will lose jobs, regardless of whether it is medicare, doctors, nurses, that is $500 billion that is not out there. people will lose jobs, for good or for bad. that is my comment. i do not know if you agree with that or not. the government is our main stimulus. guest: how connected do you feel -- the host: how connected or removed from this do you feel out in michigan? are people talking about it? caller: we do have to cut, i think, but there are a lot of jobs to cut that might be worthless. the sequestered just cut everything. but there are some things that maybe should be cut, and a lot that should not. but people will lose jobs regardless. i the more you cut, the more
9:10 am
jobs get lost, four or four bad. hippa guest: i think you're absolutely right -- guest: i think you are right absolutely right. i have a couple of numbers for you. as a nonpartisan tracker of all of these things come out there was a projection of 750,000 jobs lost because of the sequestered. and there are many questions about how this will slow product growth. i know goldman sachs just had a report out also lowering growth estimates, which has a domino it back on jobs as well. and i think you'll be hearing more about this in your local michigan media as the sequestered takes effect, particularly when it comes to defense. he mentioned contracts. bloomberg did a study finding that one-third of the
9:11 am
sequestered cuts are going to be impacting contracts. 70 cents of every dollar when it comes to procurement comes from defense. and we know that half of the sequester will be cuts to defense. and we have defense contracts in all 50 states. you will certainly be seen that in michigan. host: nathaniel is joining us from the c-span bus. the lead. >> thank you for having me. i was just wondering, how do you think we could instill some transparency and make professional lobbying not such a bad thing? do you think that public opinion is too far gone at this point? guest: i'm curious about where this question originated. do you see transparency with any
9:12 am
lobbyists that you are concerned about? >> through my study there been some that they referred to as a revolving door leading congress and going and lobbying and taking huge pay increases. i see the issue without an -- with that. however, myself, i believe we need lobbyists. is a right of the people. that is where we stand -- where i stand on the issue. guest: that is a very good question. yes, you will not seek the death of lobbying any time soon because it has been proven effective. and one counter to traditional lobbying is what we have seen with the growth of the social media campaigns and what they have been able to do with grassroots organizing, but it is counter traditional lobbying. and they have rules on the books on when you can leave congress and become a registered lobbyist.
9:13 am
i'm not hearing a lot of change on that right now. host: a caller from lafayette, good morning. caller: 3 comments. the one for the caller from georgia indicates that barack obama's presidency will be a failure. tell them to take a long, hard look at george bush and allies that he told the american people. next, at one time i'd you did your program and there was a jenn book -- a gentleman from another country, i think brazil, who studied in america. host: was this "washington journal" or bloomberg tv? caller: i'm talking about washing -- "washington journal."
9:14 am
he got a ph.d. in anthropology, which is a study of cultures. and he indicated that he got his ph.d. -- i think it was from harvard. and he went back to his country and i remember him calling on one of your programs indicating that with all of the brains that we have in america in reference to scientists, doctors and all of the intelligent people, he never could understand how america could not get past racism, bigotry, and hatred. now, and in reference to the sequestered -- host: what is your take away in reference to what you heard the gentleman say? caller: you can look at racism or hatred or bigotry, and look at wende barack obama brand and you have people standing in
9:15 am
barackfor seven, -- when bac obama iran and you have people standing in line for seven or eight hours. you should not have people standing in line for several hours to vote. that should not happen in america. host: we will come back to your question for megan hughes. the first, i want to go to this article. we have a couple of things from our caller. one was about the legacy of george w. bush. the other was about our past as we are working to get past the
9:16 am
sequester. guest: right, and talking about the debt and the long-term legacy. in terms of voting rights, believe the president also had a commission looking at voting fairness. i believe that was a recently announced initiative. the other thing that i did not hear your address but where i thought you were going with the question that i have heard on bluebird with a number of co's that we have talked to is the problem with immigrants coming over and getting it ph.d's and then leaving. there is a lot of talent getting educated and then leaving the country it sounds like you are referencing that it happened for other reasons, but one of the reasons that we year in this country is -- that we hear in this country is a limited visa program. that is what we hear talk about
9:17 am
a lot in the program. we have talked to people from silicon valley, from start-ups that have tried to hire here in the u.s., but could not find the talent. they found the talent in belarus and cannot bring the workers here because they cannot get the visas. they have workers that are working in belarus that they would like to bring here, but they cannot. host: we have one more student ready to talk to megan hughes. jerilyn joran does now. -- caroline joins us now. >> what is the impact you expect from gun legislation, given the fact that there are a large number of assault style weapons grandfather being. guest: i leave your speaking as a bit about the assault weapons ban, correct?
9:18 am
>> correct. guest: the 1994 assault weapons ban, there were many questions about its web -- its effectiveness. senator dianne feinstein work on this in 1994. she is the main push, the maine senator pushing this today. -- the main senator pushing this today. the real question is whether it stands a chance. you have heard the president speaking about assault weapons bans as the booklet. you want -- specifically. he wants to see a boat propeller -- a vote. host: megan hughes works for bloomberg tv.
9:19 am
hertz. includes a time here in washington -- her experience includes time here in washington as well. thanks for your time. and thanks to all of the students who joined us from james madison university. we would like to give a special thanks to comcast for today's visit, and for dr. chris blake for preparing students for the program. coming up next, our regular spotlight looks at the christian south -- the christian science monitor looking at the job landscape and how it is changing. first, a news update. >> former congressman jesse jackson jr. and his wife appear in federal court separately in washington to answer criminal charges that they allegedly engaged in a scheme to spend
9:20 am
campaign funds on personal items. but the democratic congressman and his wife have agreed to plead guilty in deals with federal prosecutors. jesse jackson jr. is charged with conspiracy and his wife with one count of filing false joint federal income-tax returns. maximumkson's face penalties of several years in prison and he also faces several hundred thousand dollars in fines and forfeitures. stealing linked to the chinese government is prompted the obama administration to develop more aggressive responses to the theft of u.s. data and corporate trade secrets. a report released today considers other fines and actions against china, or any of the country found guilty of zeiger espionage. former house speaker newt obama and thethat's
9:21 am
democrats are 8 to 10 years at of the republican party concerning the face of the changing the electorate. and finally come home builders began -- finally, home builders began construction at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 890,000 last month. that is down 8.5% from december. that was the best since june, 2008. these are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> from the very start, we told the board that the approach will work. today, which was pretty straightforward, and remember, we were sent there to fix gm. that was the mission, go make this company viable company again. we've brought the message that
9:22 am
we would design, build, and sell the world's best vehicles. we will move quickly. we need your support and input. we changed a few things about the board meetings. we shorten them considerably. we stayed away from the details. we did not get into the weeds of how you build a car, but the bigger questions of financing, morale, market position and that sort of thing. the board was very supportive. we kept them informed and we just took off. >> leading general motors through bankruptcy and the bailout, former chairman and ceo, and whitaker, olen "american turnaround" sunday night at 9:00 p.m. on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: this morning, we're
9:23 am
looking at the christian science monitor. brent belsie joins us from boston. his recent -- low-rent belsie joins us from boston. his recent cover story is "where are the new jobs? you may be surprised." thanks for joining us. guest: thank you. places to look for new jobs are the medical profession, a number of new jobs coming there. almost no matter what happens to the economy. also, construction will be huge as it recounts from the problems that have had. -- rebound from the problems it has had. also, sales jobs are coming. it looks brighter than it seems right now. host: if you would like to join
9:24 am
the conversation with the business editor of the christian science monitor, here are the numbers. the christian science monitor shows the fastest-growing occupations, the 20 that are projected to be the fastest growth this decade. like seeing things personal-care 8, home health aide, biomedical engineers, and other careers in the medical industry. what is the difference in terms of pay? how much or how little do they pay? guest: if you look at that chart, you can see pretty visibly that there's quite a dichotomy between high paid jobs and those that are fast- growing, and then a lot of low- paid jobs. it is the metal that is getting squeezed. -- it is in the middle that is getting squeezed. for example, the fastest-growing
9:25 am
job is the personal care aid. you're making under $20,000 per year if you use of the like that. it would be a very low paying job. number three, a biomedical engineer, that is great. euille making over $80,000 per year on average. -- you will be making over $80,000 per year on average. the high is growing and a low is growing, and the middle is getting squeezed. host: are these jobs coming from the private sector? guest: come from all over. one could point to obamacare, for example, as a push, or an added push for the medical sector. but frankly, those jobs look like they will continue to grow and have been growing. and there are many in the private sector that have nothing to do with government, construction jobs for example. host: and some of these construction jobs are on the fastest growing list.
9:26 am
that includes burk amazins, block amazins, stonemasons, also, a carpenter helper and plummer helper. and we see others, including brick mason and block mason. what is the likelihood of a career in those fields in terms of a living wage? guest: in terms of a living wage, it gets tougher. many of these construction jobs in particular are coming from the rebound that we had. the construction industry took such a hit during the great recession that it is just trying to recover to normal levels. even though these are fast growing numbers, they will still not be back to what they were before. and as far as a living wage, well, especially some of the lower end jobs where you are helping, you are starting out
9:27 am
at a pretty low salary. you are serving something of an apprentice ship. you will presumably go on to a better job in the industry, but to start out, it is pretty low. host: where are we seeing innovation and new ideas playing into the job market? guest: i would point to two areas. i would point to the energy field, where this relatively new technology of bringing out new oil and gas from these dwells -- these wells has to turn around america's energy picture in a huge way. we could expect that to have perhaps 1.3 million new jobs this decade coming as a result of that. the app economy. everyone seems to be carrying around a smart phone, and i bet on there.several app as
9:28 am
there are people who write those. and that will continue. host: the christian science monitor also has a list of the most inventive and innovative cities. where are the boom areas that you're watching? guest: you cannot go anywhere and think about technology without thinking about silicon valley. that will be a place to see more growth. if you look at the places that generate the most patents, they are the places that are already very innovative. we took a look at cities where there are more patents per thousand residents. and then you get a few more interesting places. san jose is still no. 1. but then you get smaller cities like burlington, vt., rochester,
9:29 am
minn., corvallis, ore., etc. i should point out that the list is a little bit misleading because some of these places have large facilities. poughkeepsie, new york, for example, which is no. 6, it has an ibm facility there. that has a boost in the patent count. nevertheless, places that are invented, please is creating the most new stock are the places that you want to live -- the place is creating the most news staff are the places that you want to live if you want to get a job. geography matters. host: here's a question on twitter. what about pilots? a lot of baby boomers are retiring in that field. about if we're talking commercial pilots, for example, i do not have the exact numbers here. i would be a little concerned
9:30 am
about the airline industry in general. it seems to go through a lot of ups and downs and it is tough to have a long, stable career in an industry like back europe's -- like that. host: are there fields where there aging out because of a bubble and the christian science marr to shows there may be opportunities for careers? guest: there are several. education pops to mind. lots of baby boomers are retiring and beginning to leave some openings. but i have got to say that one of the trends i am seeing is that baby boomers are putting off retirement and working longer. as a result, it will be slower, that transition. host: ryan is our first caller
9:31 am
for low-rent belsie from illinois. hi, brian -- for low-rent belsie from illinois. hi, brian. -- laurent belsie. caller: it seems more jobs come from the private sector, and that is where the government gets taxes. if there are more public jobs than private, then you are robbing peter to pay paul. guest: it is true that a lot of health care jobs are popping up, but frankly, that is part of the private sector. we will see more of those jobs, more of the specialty jobs come up. at least half of them tend to be highly paid.
9:32 am
i would say i would not be too worried about the government jobs taking over, because if anything, we will see cuts coming forward. it may not look as dire as it seems when you look down this list and see health care and think government jobs. host: we see jobs that we have talked about already here, but we also see some sales positions, like a retail sales person, the number of new jobs projected to be over 700,000. the median pay, about $20,000. i talked to was about sales -- talk to us about sales. guest: 1 would have thought that the death of a salesman was
9:33 am
coming true number of years ago because of the internet. but it turns out that sales will be immensely important going forward. the number of retail sales clerks is happening because there is a such -- there is such a huge number they're already that even a regular amount of growth will create so many more of those jobs. but it turns out there are a lot of places for technical sales people, wholesale sales people who still need the cute -- the human connection. we profile someone was making three sales jobs and he was making between $250,000 and $500,000 per year. not bad. host: next caller on the independent line.
9:34 am
caller: there was a 60 minutes a few months ago about the jobs that are needed in the country, but they are just -- there are not a skilled laborers to take them. it looks like it was for specific machinery. also, a second question. where does nyc stand with the future of the job market? guest: i did not see the 60 minutes' segment. i will just tell you from my own experience what we have seen. it is very true that there are segments that are already short of workers. that is because the training is not there. in chicago, there's certain software -- there are certain software developers that have seen a 20% increase in pay just
9:35 am
in the past year, for example, because there are just not enough people. and they have to bid up those prices. in certain niches, there are these places that are burning in terms -- booming in terms of salary. new york city is a place of innovation. i would not bet against new york at all. host: we are seeing here on the list of america's most inventors cities, the trenton area of new jersey. biotech being the reason. other east coast areas, poughkeepsie, and the middletown region, and burlington, vermont. turning to the west coast, santa cruz, calif., and the seattle area. at the middle of the country, rochester, and austin, texas.
9:36 am
many corporations that have boosted the statins, which is why you have this list, but do they have commonalities? guest: the basis of commonality is that they are innovative. it probably will not be the people in their backyard or garage who have created this vast number of patents, but what they have created the culture of innovation. it means they are moving and the residents tend to be ready to strike out a little bit more on their own. that builds on itself. places that are highly successful, silicon valley, seattle, etc., are inspiring residents to be more inventive. that innovation creates jobs. host: our guest laurent belsie
9:37 am
is the editor at the christian science monitor. one of the things we're talking about is about the next hubs of innovation. he talks about how a new study from the brookings institution identifies high patent cities in this category, including burlington, vermont, new mexico, and trenton, new jersey. our next caller, good morning. caller: good morning. before 2002, manufacturing was the backbone of the american economy. in 2002, americans had control of everything and they went after the unions. there were giving tax breaks to move jobs off -- offshore to bus the unions. this was by design. the president's jobs bill wants
9:38 am
to reverse that back to the clinton policy of paying american companies to create jobs in america. whereas republicans just want to bust up the unions and get these jobs out of here. 2002, i was making decent money. after that, my job went to china and my cut was -- my pay was cut virtually in half. i think it was by design. they are paying these companies to move jobs offshore. guest: what kind of industry was it? where did you work? host: i'm sorry, i disconnected him. i did not realize he wanted to follow-up with him. guest: 08 times are. i would not be 2002 as the start of all of that. i was at the monitor in the
9:39 am
chicago bureau in the 1980's and one only had to drive to the south side of chicago and see all of the steel plant's closing as a result of competition from the japanese, competition from the koreans, etc. that took a very heavy toll on unions. and on blue-collar jobs generally. i had hoped when i started this -- one of my surprises was that the midwest is back. manufacturing jobs do seem to have stabilized. our move to bring back jobs to the u.s., i do not think it is so much political as just a result of economics. wages rise in china and u.s. workers are more productive than the chinese. it makes sense to bring some of those jobs back. but what i found in the research was, yes, manufacturing u.s., ig
9:40 am
to come back in the united states, but it will come back with not a lot more jobs. the reason is those factories will become more productive, more capital, more machinery. the jobs will not go to china anymore, but they will go to robots, at least -- at least they are u.s. robots, but not people, sadly. host: this is an article from the christian science monitor weekly. new confided on their website. you say that the job landscape is changing. take us through some highlights. guest: i mentioned the energy boom we are seeing in the u.s. there are some questions about it, some environmental concerns, certainly.
9:41 am
but as long as that industry continues, we are seeing a real boom in specific areas of the country. even though it probably is not enough to bring down oil prices for filling up your car, it will at least be that money -- that money that we pay willoughby's be going to u.s. companies and u.s. workers. that is a change, and -- the money that we pay it will at least be going to u.s. companies and u.s. workers. that is a change, and an important one. gm is coming back and everything, but it seems it will be a more capital-intensive industry and less of a generator of jobs. it may not be a place of great increase in terms of employment. host: new ollis -- you also have a section called "green is not always gold." tell us about how things work a
9:42 am
few years ago and how they are looking now. i guest: that is one of the surprises. a few years ago the u.s. conference of mayors took a look and they suggested that in the next 30 years we could see this huge jump in employment. it turns out they were too conservative in the number of jobs they estimated. they estimated about 750,000 jobs. it turns out there are a little over 2 million jobs in the grain sector, as counted -- in the green sector, as counted by the federal government. but the load is not there yet. from 2003-10 they have added 100,000 jobs. that is great, but not a lot by the time the solar industry and the wind in history -- when the industry have been booming. the promise of great jobs is out there and eventually will be
9:43 am
there, but it will take longer than we think, partly because the energy boom is creating such a cheap energy, especially natural gas. there'll be less incentive for people to switch to solar power or wind power, etc. host: nancy joins us from kansas city, missouri, republicans line. caller: a lot of us baby boomers do not have savings enough to live on for the next 20 years or so. we are out there looking for jobs. a lot of us do not have jobs. that is my question. how do we baby boomers get jobs in this age? we have degrees, but when we go to apply for jobs, we do not seem to be able to be the age group they're looking for.
9:44 am
how do we get those jobs, or any job, that baby boomers need to sustain as -- us because we do not have the money put aside to live. that is my question and my comment. thank you. guest: excellent question and comment. i wish i could give you a specific answer. because what we are seeing is that there is just a lot of hurt out there among the unemployed. this recovery has been so slow that it is not creating a real lift in jobs to employ people who have been unemployed for a long time. it is possible near the second half of the year that we will see a pickup in employment growth.
9:45 am
if that happens, it will be easier. but i guess i would say, and this would be advice to baby boomers or anybody, be flexible. be ready to move. look in those areas where you think there will be growth. but i understand, nancy, i is very hard these days. host: tony tweets in and asks, does a new normal mean that workers will have to have more than one job? guest: not necessarily, but probably more than one employer during your lifetime. we are seeing that there are more switches that way. this idea of lifetime employment with one employer seeing you through it probably going to be true only in a minority of cases. there are what we call hybrid
9:46 am
workers, people who try to bridge industries. i have one job, but they try to -- a lawyer goes to law school or a doctor goes to medical school and they tried to deal with the issues that arise. jobs like that can be interesting -- interesting. if you can leverage your experience in your new industry, you have a leg up. host: here is a headline this morning. it takes a bachelor's degree to find a job as a file clerk. it profiles college graduates who are happy to get jobs as receptionists, paralegals, jobs that did not used to require a bachelor's degree. the work is tight. in your story, you write about how more degrees do not always mean more pay. guest: absolutely.
9:47 am
one of the surprises for me was a research in 2010 that suggested one out of five men, i think, and one out of seven women with bachelor's degrees were earning less than people with just a high-school degree. this gets to this squeeze idea. the old in the middle jobs that you could get will be harder to get. they make up a smaller percentage of the economy. you have more low-paying jobs or more high-paying jobs. that is a concern. and something that we are hoping the recovery will help to ease a little bit. so that people who have gone to the troubled of getting a good education and doing all the right things that they should be doing will be able to move from these loh and jobs into
9:48 am
something more remember air to give -- more rumor narrative. host: 1 executive we talked to said that they used a college agree as a way to weed out candidates that do not have as much education. that is according to analysis from brookings institution. we have a caller from atlanta on the phone. hi, chris. give us some local perspective on atlanta. caller: i am an old guy, 81 years old. it seems to be that the young than people with justpeople in this day and, they want to start at the top and not the bottom. when i started out years ago i
9:49 am
went into a separate ship -- and apprenticeship program and it worked out well for me. i wonder about apprenticeship programs in this country today for young people starting out. guest: that is an excellent question. we did a story a few months ago that talks about how manufacturing companies have apprenticeship programs through the 1950's,ship program and it worked out well for me. i wonder about 1960's. and then they began to cut them back. and they figured they would rely on technical schools and other students to give -- to train our people and we will not have to do that. it turns out that some manufacturers are coming back and saying, the trainees we really need, they need to know our system, so we're going to train them.
9:50 am
there's a move back to apprenticeships, and it is probably a wise idea. host: let's hear from our next caller in new jersey on the democrats line. caller: my question is, with the lack of technology in the city, but the last six years, they cut down 150,000 jobs. because of a lot of things, the fiscal cliff. there's a lack of innovative people. that is why they are not able to come up with the new things. when will they start hiring?
9:51 am
people with degrees are working in starbucks. i want to see changes in the biotech industry. guest: i think that comment is very insightful and points to the problems that there are. just because you are in high- tech does not mean you do not have -- do not face unemployment. i would also say that is probably a temporary situation. we are seeing an awful lot of innovation in terms of pharmaceuticals and other bile led -- biomedical treatment that will create new jobs. it is just lumpy. it does not happen in a smooth
9:52 am
way. people sometimes do have to take starbucks jobs in between those lumps of employment growth. host: laurent belsie is the editor of christian science monitor. he has worked at the monitor for over three decades in various jobs, including as a correspondent in chicago, pittsburgh, and st. louis. and he has been overseas in bonn and tokyo. you also cover the u.s. invasion of haiti in 1994. and you move to the boston headquarters and are serving now as the business editor. here's a comment on twitter, who writes, i am in atlanta and technology park is devastated. it used to employ 700,000 people. another person writes in and asked about computer science,
9:53 am
i.t., and cyber security jobs. how are they forecasted to grow over the next decade? and he wants to know whether outsourcing is at play. guest: in terms of i.t., we have seen a lot of outsourcing happened. and we probably will see more. although, it is interesting that we now have some indian i.t., and cybercompanies, becauo seeing this happen to india, who are setting up shop here. it goes both ways. we hope that it comes back to the united states a little bit more. the question about cyber security, i'm not sure that anybody has any numbers. you can be sure after the reports that we have seen this week, and also in the past few months, that companies and the government will be paying a lot more attention to that. and cyber security experts, i
9:54 am
would guess, will be in great demand for the next several years. host: here is a headline from the "new york times" -- -- "washington *" -- here's a republican caller from houston. caller: we have a situation down here where a small business person can make $1 million, but then they do not give up benefits. all of my nieces and nephews and my sons have to work two and three jobs with no benefits and they're working part-time. i say the jobs of the future should be the jobs of the past. take away the kiosks and bring back people at desks and bring back receptionist. people should calling it a person instead of a robot. and computer errors are causing a lot of problems and the social security office closes at 3:00. they could be open until 7:00
9:55 am
or 8:00 to deal with the problems that are made by computer errors. i think we should be bringing back the jobs of the past two deal with the jobs of the future. that is my idea. guest: first of all, let me say that there are a lot of people like your nieces and nephews who are having to work part-time jobs when they want to work full-time jobs. there are millions of people in that position. and often, those part-time jobs do not include benefits. and until this recovery begins to gain speed comparable -- gained speed, it will be difficult. i think it will gain speed and we will eventually add more jobs and there will be more employment opportunities. but it may take a while yet. it has been a painfully slow
9:56 am
recovery. bring back the jobs of the past, i think there are many people who would agree with that. i just do not know if it is going to happen. host: there is a section in asks,t belsie's ps that who will take the immigrants? what about these jobs? guest: that is a very good question. for reasons of demography, for reasons of a much more secure border, for reasons of lots of reports of robbery and other things that happen to people who are trying to cross into the u.s., that immigration flow has just basically come to a dead halt. while it will probably pick up as the economy picks up a
9:57 am
little, experts say that it will not go back to what it was. it will not be mexican immigrants coming in and taking these manual jobs. who will take them? well, it could be americans. it could be other people from other countries in latin america who are not as well-off as those in mexico. it may be people from africa and other parts. the one of the most exciting parts of this story was going to the american red cross in cambridge to see these people who were doing these home health aide jobs. who were they? i kind of expected that they would be the people who were down and out and looking for something that was secure, even though basically low-paying. what i found was many united
9:58 am
nations of immigrants coming from all over, asia, africa, and europe -- eastern europe, latin america and they had all gotten to the united states and they were starting out. they were doing the first round of the job market and that was going to be there steppingstone. for someone who wanted to go into registered nursing, or others who wanted to do something else, but it was that spirit that we read about back in the early 1900's when millions came to the u.s. looking for a better life. they started out on the smallest steps and they worked their way up. it is inspiring to see that work today. host: here's a tweet. when i started working i could
9:59 am
get a single job for life. throughout my life i will have multiple jobs in multiple careers. and to that another comment, i have changed by jobs eight times to survive and increase my income. laurent belsie, thank you for joining us. guest: my pleasure. host: you can see his story on the cover of the christian science monitor weekly. it is our spotlight on magazines segment. that is all for "washington journal" this morning. thanks for joining us today. we will be back at 7:00 a.m. tomorrow eastern time and we will be alive tomorrow from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. eastern out in chantilly, va., at the blue ridge arsenal. our guest will be talking about the efficient -- the issue of guns, including pratt, the president of gun owners of america. that is tomorrow morning on "washington journal." "washington journal."


disc Borrow a DVD of this show
info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on